"GREETINGS, Earthling FReepers! I am the one you have been waiting for! Take me to the Religion Forum immediately!"
Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
There are many whose ignorance is deliberate.
ph
As far as everyone testing for himself. I don't find that in the Bible. I DO find that some are apostles, some teaches, and so forth. Some, not all.
And not everyone has the time or the gifts to do his own testing. Surely you don't think a 3 year old should do his own testing. What about someone who doesn't have the gift for Bible study and theology?
And if the Bible and the gifts you say are provided, there is still the problem of the divisions among Sola Scriptura adherents. Some say the Bible has all Truth. Others profess Sola Scripture but do not say that. They can't both be right, can they?
I didn't say I didn't believe in the Fall. I alluded to (but did not say outright) that you seemed to think that reason is so corrupted that it cannot be relied on. I think there are problems, but not with reason itself. Rather we don't use it, we don't listen to it, we don't always WANT to know the truth. So our reason errs sometimes, but more often we just don't or won't use it.
An invitation is not the same as a Wanted Dead or Alive poster. 'Twas my point. If the Church is the same tool of satan that many make it out to be, and Martin Luther doing the will of God, would not Martin Luther have been assassinated by a hateful and demonic Church. Does the fact that Martin Luther led a luxurious and privileged life, with his position at the University bought and paid for by the Church that he reviled, without fears of assassination or other retribution not strike you as being at odds to what most Protestants believe about this part of history?
A principle is bound by the acts of his agent. IF however the agent abuses his position, bad stuff gonna happen. But, as I have said, while to outsiders it may appear that we trust in men, what we trust is that God will guide certain men.
That's all ya got? Sheesh. That was disappointing. :-)
Not at all, since the secular authorities of that area precluded the reach of the Catholics.
So he received an 'invitation'. Maybe he had re-read Matt 2 and decided not to go.
No you miss the point entirely
I don’t care what the NOSTRA AETATE says .
Mary , her cousin Elizabeth and her husband Zechariah were righteous in God’s eyes because they kept his original covenant .
Do you know what Zechariah was doing when he got word that his wife would bear a son ?
They were at the time of their birth under the Old Covenant and they were keeping it so they were righteous in God’s eyes .
How can the New Covenant cover them at that time when it had not happened yet ?
Payment for sin by the New Covenant did not happen until
Jesus paid the ultimate price at the cross. Before this time people who were righteous in God’s eyes were the ones who kept his Old Covenant and to say otherwise is to totally ignore God’s Covenant with Israel.
Here in the Old Testament were are told about a New Covenant but until that New Covenant went into effect it was the Old one that made people righteous.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
You do realize that none of the people were Catholics right ?
What I did say was that it was not de Fide until the definition. Assent to it was not required.
Currently it is not decided whether Mary was assumed before or after her death. Clearly, if we grant the Assumption, one or the other must be true. But it has net been declared one way or the other. The Church may (and presumably does) discuss it.
Before Nicea it was okay to argue Arianism. Now it's not. Before Chalcedon one could argue monophysitism or monothelitism. I was just made aware of a monothelite movement arising among some Catholics. Because of Chalcedon, as I read their stuff, I can see right away that whatever the relationship between God's will and man's IS, THEIR version is certainly erroneous.
There still is this notion that the Church runs the flock with a tight rein. That's just not true. It's only when an issue comes to a kind of boiling point that definitions are made.
And once they're made they're settled (in theory at least) and we can move on.
Definitions do not make something true. We may be jerks, even Big jerks, but not THAT big.
One more stab at it. If you wanted to become a Catholic in 1953 you would not have to give assent to the idea that Mary was immaculately conceived. But now, when we instruct people who want to come into full communion, we try to lay out both the big Marian Dogmata, to explain them, to say why we think they are worthy of belief. And we say if you cannot assent to this, you really shouldn't be coming into full communion.
In this case, the agent is bound to the actions of the Principle. One cannot claim the authority of God without certain proof. Thus, "ye will know them by their fruits" (that doesn't mean there are gay people involved! ).
IF however the agent abuses his position, bad stuff gonna happen. But, as I have said, while to outsiders it may appear that we trust in men, what we trust is that God will guide certain men.
That, I will submit, is the very same thinking which bound people to the Pharisees. I see *no* creed or confession as being "the one and only" anything... There IS a "one and only," but it ain't found in such a thing.
The Temple of Yahweh, with it's anointed succession, was TWICE corrupted to the point of destruction. It should be a lesson.
How many Jewish grandmothers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None...that's okay, I'll just sit here in the dark. :o)
A primary verb (used only in the definite past tense, the others being borrowed from G2046, G4483 and G5346); to speak or say (by word or writting): - answer, bid, bring word, call, command, grant, say (on), speak, tell. Compare G3004.The word "they" is implied, and the word "bid" is past tense:
Well επωσιν sure looks like a third person plural verb, so the "they" is not really "implied." It's explicit in the verb ending. And "seat" is singular. The grammar seems to say the ones sitting on Moses' seat, the scribes and the pharisees are the ones who did the "have said."
Don't you think we know the apparent similarity? We do claim an explicit scriptural commissioning and promises.
I see *no* creed or confession as being "the one and only" anything... There IS a "one and only," but it ain't found in such a thing.
That may explain why we do not claim to have delineated and defined every possible aspect of the Faith. Crises come up, and then resolutions are arrived at -- as at Jerusalem, so at Vatican II
Old Reggie, I think it is, points out gleefully that there isn't an index of "infallible definitions." He also points out, not without some reason, that later decisions change the 'vibe' of previous decisions (or indecisiveness).
Certainly the nullus salus declaration has been unfolded in a (to me) good way which has had the salutory result of clarifying what we mean by being in the Church. The cynic may laugh and say that we got in too deep and had to back out. And I'm sure there's some of that in how the whole thing worked out. (By "I'm sure" I mean "I have no idea, but it sounds good to me.")
But while it seems to trouble the half-empty side of the aisle, I think it's a step forward to say that other "Ecclesial assemblies" include "separated brethren." It's good because of the obvious fact that there are some very holy people who ain't all the way in the Catholic Church. And it's good because it prompted the idea of "the fullness of the Church." rather than a kind of binary attitude which was a little too clunky to deal with the Truth of how God acts.
Leaving San Francisco aside for a minute, I'm inclined to be very careful in assessing fruits. It may be a drag that some people get themselves crucified on Good Friday out of a perverse misunderstanding of appropriate penance. But it beats the heck out of fighting each other on Good Friday because they have no idea that there might be better ways to spend the day.
It helps to be patient. It is required. Now in some allegedly catholic places they through babies on garbage piles. But in those same places some people are giving their lives to rescue as many of those babies as they can, and to find good homes for them. Who knows how many generations it will take to get from killing one another for kicks on Good Friday to establishing social structures and mores that make common chastity and obedience to the Christian injunction from as far back as the Didache NOT to kill newborns.
We can look at the mess that is Latin America and blame it on the Catholics. OR we can look at the mess it was BEFORE Catholics came to those shores. I think cannibalism has shown a marked decline. That's not such a bad fruit.
And at the same time, Catholics in the Caribbean and back in Spain were doing some critical work in establishing the idea that it was NOT cool to go kill the men and babies and rape the women (or enslave them all) just because the people were not Christian. Not such a bad fruit.
Well that's certainly not a description of your religion...The popes of your religion ebrace every corrupt and anti-God leader on the face of the earth...
Hitler's top henchmen were Catholics...Saddam Hussein's top henchmen are/were Catholics...The communist dictators in Central and South America are Catholics...Mussolini was a Catholic...
The evils of the world embrace Catholocism...
Thank you for proving stfassisi’s point and confirming my opinion that the full esse of Church is among those in Communion with the Holy See. Stfassisi set the standard of proof and straight away you met it.
WELL DONE.
THX FOR THE PING.
Saying “”Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” is one thing.
Making statues of her, praying to her, lighting candles to her, naming churches after her, attributing to her attributes of God alone, and making up stories about her that have ZERO Scriptural basis and declaring them church doctrine is another.
==
INDEED.
Hitler’s top henchmen were Catholics.
quoted from wikepedia
“His father’s efforts at Hafeld ended in failure and the family moved to Lambach in 1897. There, Hitler attended a Catholic school located in an 11th-century Benedictine cloister whose walls were engraved in a number of places with crests containing the symbol of the swastika.[15] It was in Lambach that the eight year-old Hitler sang in the church choir, took singing lessons, and even entertained the fantasy of one day becoming a priest.[16] In 1898, the family returned permanently to Leonding.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.